Who is an offender to the Guru?

[Guest guest]

Is thinking that your siksha guru may not have been right on some practical issue, or on some material subject matter, sufficient to be considered a guru-aparadha?

 

By "not being right" I mean more that a mispronounciation of a word or other random and irrelevant mistakes, but errors in knowledge about this world, or errors in judgement in terms of implementing things that produce mostly undesirable results in the long term.

 

It is not a challenge but a humble and sincere question placed to the many advanced Vaishnavas on this forum by someone desiring to improve his own life. Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

[Guruvani 0]

yes, no, maybe, not always, depends.....

 

how about a couple of examples to show your point?

 

your question is too generic.

[cbrahma 0]

Logically, a guru is siksha because he knows something he can teach you.

Does this mean he must be ominiscient? Could he make mistakes about geography or history in areas that have nothing to do with the field of knowledge that makes him a siksha? Why not?

The way siksha is defined, it is a relational term. Somebody may be siksha for you and not somebody else. Furthermore, it can be temporary. That guru may be siksha for some time and not for other times, once your knowledge has increased. Anybody can be siskha if he/she has bona fide knowledge. That doesn't imply infallibility.

 

 

Is thinking that your siksha guru may not have been right on some practical issue, or on some material subject matter, sufficient to be considered a guru-aparadha?

 

By "not being right" I mean more that a mispronounciation of a word or other random and irrelevant mistakes, but errors in knowledge about this world, or errors in judgement in terms of implementing things that produce mostly undesirable results in the long term.

 

It is not a challenge but a humble and sincere question placed to the many advanced Vaishnavas on this forum by someone desiring to improve his own life. Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

[Guruvani 0]

many times our own limited understanding and knowledge will cause us to find mistakes and illusions in the statements and teachings of a pure devotee.

 

many times we just have to give up our fault-finding propensity and see the broader, more transcendental aspect of the pure devotees teachings.

 

The defect is in our understanding, not in the words of the pure devotee.

[Guest guest]

Regardless of adjective placed before the word "guru", the fact is that the term "guru" means one who acts as via medium between Krsna and the student.

 

So, there must be concurrance between anyone accepted as guru, regardless of the adjective (siksa, diksa, etc).

 

And there is no whip in this process, either. Guru is there to give, disciple is there to take. If a disciple cannot accept, he doesnt accept, period. There is no aparadha at all. Aparadha means defiance, vilification, disturbing the mission of, etc. A simple doubt is just that, and is quite well addressed throughout the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Arjuna commits no aparadha as he boldly declares, "I will not fight". Similarly, if a devotee cannot accept something, he is recommended to chant, to continue with that which he can accept. The phrase "gradual process" is prominant in the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, and as discussed on another current topic concerning challenge of authority, it is also warned against sudden acceptance without reason, a form of fanaticism.

 

Folks come to this science for four reasons, poverty, misery, inquisitiveness, and wisdom. The first three are not enough for one to remain fixed, because when poverty leaves, so does the devotee, when misery turns to happiness, the devotee leaves, when curiosity is satisfied, the devotee goes on to other mental quests. Only the wise remain, so it behooves the devotee to become wise, regardless of why he was originally attracted to krsna consciousness.

 

The swcientific process for becoming wise is sadhana bhakti, hearing and chanting under the direction of guru, hearing this science. Different functions of Guru (Lord Nityananda Prabhu), such as siksa, diksa, etc, all concur on the tenets of this science. If one finds non-concurrance, then there may be a problem. Thus it takes WISDOM to discern the truth. Disciple means responsibility, the disciple is responsible for whom he hears from.

 

Aparadha is a different subject altogether. This word is thrown about by fools trying to establish false authority, despotic domination over others. However, it is a fact that the first stage of bhakti yoga, the kanistha adhikari stage, is also referred to as the offensive stage. This means that the beginner is full of faults, has many doubts, cannot discern between devotee and demon. A kanistha adhikari must continually chant, associate with advanced devotees, see the deities and become purified under the direction of a bonafide spiritual master. But there is no question of aparadha in the simple non-acceptance of a teaching. Aparadha is an offence that requires action, not simple non-belief. However, non-belief may turn to action and become a major offense if such non-belief is advertized, used as a tool to discredit, etc. Similar to anger, which is not a problem, the actions of anger become the problem.

 

Good question, watch out for buzz words like aparadha. Bad usage or mis-usage of such words dilute, severely, the real meanings of such words.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[cbrahma 0]

Seems siksha is a broader category than pure devotee.

 

 

many times our own limited understanding and knowledge will cause us to find mistakes and illusions in the statements and teachings of a pure devotee.

 

many times we just have to give up our fault-finding propensity and see the broader, more transcendental aspect of the pure devotees teachings.

 

The defect is in our understanding, not in the words of the pure devotee.

[Guest guest]

 

Seems siksha is a broader category than pure devotee.

The vartamanapradarsaka guru introduces us to Krsna bhakti and shows the way. The hari nama guru give us the mahamantra. The diksa guru gives us the diksa (gayatri) mantras. The siksa guru gives us instruction and there can be many siksa gurus. Anyone who shows the way, gives hari nama or diksa or both, and anyone who gives siksa may or may not be a pure devotee. Ultimately only one who is a pure devotee can truly help us on the path of pure bhakti. Others of a lesser stage of purity may be empowered by a pure devotee to assist him/her.

[Guruvani 0]

We are all offenders to our guru, otherwise we would have attained svarupa-siddhi.

The problem is that we like to think that someone else is offender of the guru and I am the prefect angel.

 

When one thinks that someone else is the offender and I am perfect, then his spiritual life has effectively come to a stand-still.

[Guest guest]

No it's not an offense; it's called using your intelligence. God gave you a brain, so you might as well use it.

 

The problem is it may be possible that no one really knows who is perfectly enlightened person is until they themselves are perfectly enlightened. So you start out by putting alot of faith into someone because you have to start somewhere and whoever seems to know what she or he is talking about.

 

Then later on turns out the person you put faith in was wrong about something or alot of things. It might be an example of relative truth versus absolute truth. There was a thread about this in regards to a talk given by Sridhar Maharaja. A person can teach you alot of good things but also some chaff got mixed in with the wheat. So it's up to you to separate the two.

 

That is how you become self-realized: by living life, refining more and more your perception of Reality and gradually figuring out for yourself more and more what is an eternal truth Absolute Truth versus a relative temporal truth.

[Guest guest]

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies.

 

As to being more specific, I prefer to address things in more general terms, applicable to all gurus in Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages, as specific instances tend to cause emotional reactions in participants. I have seen quite a few such situations in life.

 

I am not at all bothered by my guru's "not being right all the time" or "quite likely making errors in judgement on practical matters". I see such things as mere smudges on an otherwise flawless mirror - they stand out to me just because they are contrasted by the perfection of the background.

 

However, other disciples of that guru often give me a very hard time for having the audacity to openly express my opinions about the perceived "imperfections" or "errors" of our spiritual master in private conversations amongst ourselves. How should I act? Merely pretend I believe in something I certainly dont? That seems un-brahminical to me.

[Guest guest]

 

That is how you become self-realized: by living life, refining more and more your perception of Reality and gradually figuring out for yourself more and more what is an eternal truth Absolute Truth versus a relative temporal truth.

 

It certainly seems that way to me, but I often get an argument from my Godbrothers: "Our guru's words are already an Absolute Truth. There is no need to figure things out for yourself. Just believe and accept them as such. Later you will see that they are indeed perfect". What do I tell them?

[Guest guest]

Srila B. R. Sridhar Maharaj:

 

Madhvacarya, in his conception of how one should see the acarya, the spiritual master, could not harmonize Brahma's bewilderment. After all, he is the sampradaya guru, the foremost guru of the tradition, the Brahma-Madhva-sampradaya. So Madhvacarya omitted these two chapters on the illusion of Brahma from Srimad-Bhagavatam. But Mahaprabhu did not. He accepted Sridhara Swami's edition, which is in accordance with the suddhadvaita philosophy of Visnuswami. The Visnuswami sampradaya are followers of ragamarga, spontaneous devotion. Sridhara Swami included those two chapters with his commentary, and Mahaprabhu accepted that, and it is corroborated in Caitanya-caritamrta. Madhvacarya could not accommodate the idea that guru may be seduced. He could not tolerate that guru may not know everything, may not be omniscient, but Mahaprabhu could.

[Guest guest]

That is a very good question. You will just have to gradually discover who you can talk to and who you can't about what topics. And it will probably be a lifetime process. If you can't talk to any of your godsiblings, do you have a trusted relative or friend who is pious but practices another path?

 

Like I know one sadhaka he seems to be always serving the devotees and not saying anything controversial. But do you know how he does that? His best friend is a Buddhist monk! So what happens is the Buddhist monk rants to this Hindu senior Vaisnava about all of the crazy things that happen in his sangha, then the senior Vaisnava complains in private to his Buddhist monk friend about all of the crazy things that are happening in his camp.

 

Then to the public each one seems oh so devoted and oh everything is A-okay with me. So they do not get into trouble for making waves within their own organizations. But they get to rant and get a load off of their minds. I was quite surprised when I found this out as I thought this sadhaka the last person on earth to ever even talk to a Buddhist [gasp!] and have a Buddhist monk for a best friend. But he said, well it works out quite well for both of them. Like having a psychiatrist.

 

The same way that the only way some women can stay married to men and put on a facade that their spouse is so wonderful is because they have some girlfriends they can rant to about all the things they do not like about him.

Then they get it out of their system and don't have to let him know about it.

 

Also know that behind the scenes you can bet your bottom dollar that even the highest ones on the food chain in your tradition are probably talking all about this same kind of stuff to each other. Just they are very careful who they confide in. Or sometimes not so careful then we read about it online in some other forum of course that is more gossipy, not here of course.

[Guest guest]

 

Also know that behind the scenes you can bet your bottom dollar that even the highest ones on the food chain in your tradition are probably talking all about this same kind of stuff to each other. Just they are very careful who they confide in. Or sometimes not so careful then we read about it online in some other forum of course that is more gossipy, not here of course.

 

You may be right. This type of behavior can indeed be seen at the highest level. yet it is painful to realize that in your tradition there are taboo subjects and compromises with general integrity.

[Beggar 0]

 

You may be right. This type of behavior can indeed be seen at the highest level. yet it is painful to realize that in your tradition there are taboo subjects and compromises with general integrity.

Its really how compromises with general integirty developed after the Krsna Consciousness Movement was transplanted to the West.

[Guest guest]

There is a very good discussion of this same topic on David Chadwick's website devoted to his guru Shunryo Suzuki. SS came to the West in the 1960s, in a situation very similar to Prabhupada's. In Japan in 1960s considered not so nice for a person to leave Japan, in same way that was considered not so nice for any Hindu to come to the polluted West.

 

SS and ACBSP both surprised that the people the most into their teachings were the hippies and in SS's case not the Japanese expat community in SF. The SF Zen Center was set up by SS about the same time as ACBSP set up his SF temple and so on. And both into veg diet and meditation etc. SS even had Deity worship of Buddha and offering of a Lord's plate to Buddha first before they eat and also into a Zen version of salagram sila and doing abhisehka of it.

 

Some other similarities were in Zen tradition one must not say anything critical about the master. However some things happened very similar to KC that left the disciples of SS reeling. Such as SS only gave Dharma Transmission to one Western person; the equivalent of ACBSP appointing only eleven Western people to initiate on his behalf. But the person that SS appointed turned out not the most self-realized of all of SS's disciples; he was in fact only the best at raising money and obtaining properties, as time would reveal.

 

In a book called Shoes at the Door, is explained how when SS died, then power went to the head of SFZC's equivalent of the GBC. He started bossing all of his godsiblings around and sleeping with the wife of a married SFZC member. So then the people left behind were all like, "Omigod why did our master SS only give Dharma Transmission to Richard Baker of all people?!!!" Because many of the original SFZC Western disciples did NOT fall down.

 

So, as in ISKCON, at SFZC there were and are a variety of theories as to the why and wherefores of what happened. How could something so good go so wrong? Also to even discuss and come to some understanding, some people had to use their discriminatory faculties, which some might call "criticizing the guru" which is not allowed in Zen Buddhism. So here is how some people reconciled it:

 

They decided that this lesson shows that Dharma Transmission is not conveying pure devotee status on anyone. The legal precedent for DT is it is basically a spiritual form of a brahma vivaha i.e. the person inherits the *properties* of the guru. In the past this often went from father to son; in fact SS gave Dharma Transmission to both his biological son and to Richard Baker. When viewed as a transmission of property then it makes sense because RB was the biggest fundraiser and obtained the choicest properties for SS by his charisma. However he was not the most enlightened or self-realized person.

 

So in coming to this understanding about Japanese culture, Zen culture, which was the birth culture of their mentor, they had to first be able to cry, criticize, wonder why, doubt, freak out, think of leaving, wonder if they made a mistake, wonder if the guru had been wrong, etc. What happened ultimately is SFZC asked RB to leave. By going through this process, some of the very respectful students who love SS very much and are his heart Dharma heirs had this to say [summarized and paraphrased]:

 

In traditional Japanese Asian culture children did not criticise their parents. In fact there was very little face to face interaction between husband and wife, children and parents, servants and masters, students and teachers, etc. so everyone could "save face", be pleasant and not argue. Behind a person's back however even murders were sometimes planned and even executed but always with the very pleasant smiling face at all times beforehand.

 

In Western culture, by contrast, people are somewhat more "in your face" and upfront with each other. People tend to speak their minds more with each other and are more frank. [if you don't believe me then try reading some of the threads on this website...ack!] Thus in the West some would perceive the Asian tradition of no criticism as undemocratic fascism or in fact there is even a term in Western culture called an "Oriental despot" which means a person who has complete power and authority over others and with unquestioning allegiance and loyalty.

 

However that does not translate in a very facile way to the West in which the ideas of freedom of speech are part of the core values. In the case of SFZC some people decided that in the past it must have been a matter of group survival to not criticise the village headman or the village priest, up to the Emperor or King or what have you. Versus in post-modern civilization some see honesty as a brahminical quality and democracy as admirable.

 

So in this way similar to the thread about absolute truth versus relative truth, some of the SFZC members decided that they had not been offensive to critique the decision that their guru had made. They loved their guru and still do and they used their minds and powers of discrimination as well as studied history to understand why it would make sense to SS to give Dharma Transmission to RB but not to them, as well as know what to do when RB fell down to preserve the purity of the teachings.

 

In summary it is possible that to not criticize one's superiors may be part of the relative truth, i.e. it may in truth be a social convention that exists/ed under a certain time, place, and circumstances. This narrative is an example of how one tradition has struggled with this issue of what to do when your beloved and highly revered guru does something that you don't understand, with maybe even baffling and heart-breaking results that put many people into anxiety for years afterwards.

[Guest guest]

 

In summary it is possible that to not criticize one's superiors may be part of the relative truth, i.e. it may in truth be a social convention that exists/ed under a certain time, place, and circumstances.

 

Thank you very much for that very fitting example and commentary. I also see the requirement of not openly criticizing one's superior as a relative truth, and see it's value.

 

Yet it would appear that in order to move past some of the sincere but failed instructions of one's superior, such a relative truth may have to be sacrificed in order to reconsider the approach, cut the losses, and move on with the core of the mission. That seems to be one of the reasons for relying on a disciplic succession rather than fixing one standard of one master for all eternity.

 

Another important consideration is a difference of mentality and approach in the West. We do not take kindly to blind obedience for the sake of the adopted tradition, especially when the failures of some policies are painfully obvious. When members vote with their feet, abandoning the mission en masse, keeping the silence for the sake of status-quo and old customs seems like a wrong idea.

[Guest guest]

I heard a class once about how Krsna is very tricky and he doesn't move in a straightforward fashion, rather in a zig zag way. For example when he is roaming in the forests maybe he will take a circuituous route.

 

So too it seems with the Dharma. It's amazing that in spite of so many scandals in the yoga community and in the Zen community there are still people who inspire and who write amazing books, lead inspiring retreats, and have an appreciation for their Master.

 

In Yogi Times there was a most amazing article with five women who were asked to share who was the person who inspired them the most and who helped them the most on the path. One woman pointed to her first spiritual preceptor and was explaining that he taught her the Dharma and how to become a vegetarian etc.

 

And then she said something very surprising, "And then even when we disagreed and he kicked me out of the ashram for my telling the truth about what had been going on that was against our precepts, I learned the biggest lesson of all from him: that I have strength and integrity inside of myself."

 

In some cultures to tell the truth is considered very anti-social, disloyal, and even dangerous. It is not viewed as "good for you, you are telling the truth: you are honest and a brahmana" but viewed with horror. In the West people say, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"; in at least one Asian culture the saying is "The nail that stands up gets hammered down."

 

How we integrate the best that the East has to offer with the Western values of all humans are created equal, endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness along with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of worship is indeed certainly one of the more interesting lessons that Maha-Vishwa Guru [the Big, Bad Scary World out there] teaches us in this the post-modern era.

[Kanaka 0]

It is actually very difficult to make aparadha. But those with cult mentalities like to use fear to keep people in line. The fear of making an offense or an aparadha is sometimes used to keep followers in line, but a Paramahamsa would never do such a thing or use such a tactic. Just like the fear of hell is used to keep people in line within the Christian tradition sometimes lower Vaishnavas like to use fear to control their followers.

 

It is also not that all offenses are equal. It depends on the purity of the one being offended.

 

Devotional service is millions of times more powerful than offenses.

[trushar 0]

I am Trushar, from Nasik Maharashtra, can anybody please guide me how to gain diksha, i am in search of a right guru, but always fear of falling in wrong hands.As it is said that one starts finding a guru if he gets in a lot of problems, and he approches a guru who guides him and shows him the right path, I have heared a lot of Shree Guruji can some one guide me how to reach the whole mighty for diksha.

[Guest guest]

 

It is actually very difficult to make aparadha. But those with cult mentalities like to use fear to keep people in line. The fear of making an offense or an aparadha is sometimes used to keep followers in line, but a Paramahamsa would never do such a thing or use such a tactic.

 

That seems to be one of the misuses of this term.

 

Dont question my guru - just follow. If you question the wisdom of a certain instruction of my guru: you are an aparadhi. We can question your guru and doubt everything about him, we can even call him a "sahajiya" (here is another often misused word), but if you dare to question my guru: you are an offender. And if you dare to question instructions of your own guru: you are the lowest of the low. We welcome any beligerent wino off the street in our temple, but not devotees who question our guru.

[Beggar 0]

 

That seems to be one of the misuses of this term...

We welcome any beligerent wino off the street in our temple, but not devotees who question our guru.

Just about anyone who is within the age limit can join the army. They are all welcome to enlist. But if a soldier shows disrespect to high ranking officer he will be confined in a millitary prison. In the not too distant past he would have been executed by a firing squad. During WWII if a German enlisted man showed disrespect to an Allied general who was a POW he would at least face a court marshall. Sorry guy but ISKCON under Prabhupada and the Gaudiya Math were run very much like a millitary service. If you think that rank and file devotees questioning a guru and then being deemed an aparadhi or offender is something new you are very wrong.

[Guest guest]

 

Sorry guy but ISKCON under Prabhupada and the Gaudiya Math were run very much like a millitary service. If you think that rank and file devotees questioning a guru and then being deemed an aparadhi or offender is something new you are very wrong.

 

Even in the military there is a recognized avenue to question decisions of the commanding officers, including even the top commanders. Is there such an avenue within these institutions? What about the guru, sadhu, shastra principle? Does it apply to the gurus within IGM? Can you openly question within Iskcon, for example, the principle of limiting women's education to four years of basic schooling in the 21st century world? Would that be considered an offense?

 

I am not talking about some rebelious behavior towards the guru, but sincere inquiry in the spirit of practicality, direct experience, and observable situations in the realm of practical implementation of sadhana bhakti.

 

Of course we can simply quietly ignore such instructions or injunctions and do what obviously needs to be done, but isn't that somewhat dishonest?

[Guest guest]

 

Just about anyone who is within the age limit can join the army. They are all welcome to enlist. But if a soldier shows disrespect to high ranking officer he will be confined in a millitary prison.

 

And who determines what constitutes a "show of disrespect"? Do we have a Unified Bhakta Code to guide us? That is the question of the thread: where is the boundary between an inquiry and an offensive behavior?

[Guest guest]

What if you found your military on a good principle such as the Declaration of Independence of July 4th, 1776? You sat with your people and thought out all of the best that your worldview of civilization has handed down to you at that point in time. You draft a perfect government, with perfect checks and balances. You draft a perfect Constitution. Or so you think.

 

Then you know...turns out needed an amendment. Or two. Okay maybe ten more. Nah make that...

 

And then what? Then it still gets out of control. Need a Geneva Convention. But what if violates the Geneva Convention? Then needs an International Tribunal. And even if sanctions are advised and party is found guilty in International Tribunal then what? Sometimes the sanctions still cannot be implemented, due to lack of power of the International Tribunal.

 

So all that can happen as far as the military analogy. So same can happen in any institution. Articles galore about people who join West Point and go as high as one possibly can in the military and then they see something wrong and they report it or call it to the attention of their superiors and they get slammed for rocking the boat and upsetting the status quo.

 

So what can you do? If you feel that "You can't fight City Hall" then set up a lifestyle where you aren't in City Hall's face.

 

If you want to spend your entire life fighting City Hall then be prepared for jail time, your house bombed, and to be even killed. American President Abraham Lincoln was killed by an irate citizen for his role in freeing the slaves at the end of the Civil War, Gandhi was killed by an irate citizen who was mad that he was nice to Muslims, and M L King Jr was killed for having a dream that one day people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. "No good deed goes unpunished."